Well I am still not happy with a lot of the code, but I have had some people ask me to help test my attempt at a new MySQL benchmark. So I cleaned up the code a bit and pushed what I had to LaunchPad. It’s way to early for this to be ready for prime time, I am using it to stress flash, but as I do i am still finding issues, so use at your own risk. My goal is to make this more generic and allow user customizable SQL files to be loaded in…. something like:

1 | select * from table where a =?  |  rand | a | 1000
2 | select * from table1,table2 where table1.id=table2.id and c = ? and d=? | rand,1-200 | c,d | 10

This would mean execute query #1 , using a random value from a 1000 times in a loop before exiting… and then execute query 2, 10 times using a rand value from c, and a value between 1-200 for d….

But that is a ways off.

For now I support 4 tests which are hard coded in:

mx = mixed wokload of …

I recently released some RAID testing I did using the sysbench testing framework.  In light of the recent attention paid to multi-core CPU scalability, I have been working on some related tests trying to identify sources of contention using that same set of tests.

After effectively turning off every single innodb safety setting (like flush_log_at_trx_commit, checksums, doublewrite, etc.), and not seeing any real performance increase, I started to wonder what was going on.  
Surely my test client server wasn't the problem, it had plenty of idle CPU according to top, right?  Wrong.
I've been able to drive more QPS to my mysql test servers by starting up parallel sysbench tests from multiple test servers, but using (more or less) the same number of total test threads.  

read more

I recently released some RAID testing I did using the sysbench testing framework.  In light of the recent attention paid to multi-core CPU scalability, I have been working on some related tests trying to identify sources of contention using that same set of tests.

After effectively turning off every single innodb safety setting (like flush_log_at_trx_commit, checksums, doublewrite, etc.), and not seeing any real performance increase, I started to wonder what was going on.  
Surely my test client server wasn't the problem, it had plenty of idle CPU according to top, right?  Wrong.
I've been able to drive more QPS to my mysql test servers by starting up parallel sysbench tests from multiple test servers, but using (more or less) the same number of total test threads.  

read more

I've been doing some benchmarking recently to satisfy the curiosity about 5.1's performance compared with 4.1.  The major question this time revolves around how much additional performance an external RAID array can provide (for us it's typically beyond the 6 drives a Dell 2950 can hold). 

These tests are done on using an MSA-30 drive enclosure with 15k-SCSI drives.  The testing framework is sysbench oltp.  The test names are hopefully fairly obvious:  selects = single selects, reads = range tests, xacts = transaction tests, etc.   Transaction tests are counting individual queries, not transactions.   The "Rdm" tests are using a uniform distribution, whereas the non-'Rdm' tests are 75% of queries are using 10% of the rows.  

…

I've been doing some benchmarking recently to satisfy the curiosity about 5.1's performance compared with 4.1.  The major question this time revolves around how much additional performance an external RAID array can provide (for us it's typically beyond the 6 drives a Dell 2950 can hold). 

These tests are done on using an MSA-30 drive enclosure with 15k-SCSI drives.  The testing framework is sysbench oltp.  The test names are hopefully fairly obvious:  selects = single selects, reads = range tests, xacts = transaction tests, etc.   Transaction tests are counting individual queries, not transactions.   The "Rdm" tests are using a uniform distribution, whereas the non-'Rdm' tests are 75% of queries are using 10% of the rows.  

…

There's been a lot of rumors floating around internally at Yahoo that it's best to turn off some of your CPU cores when using Innodb, especially if you have a machine with > 4 cores.  At this point there's no question in my mind that Innodb doesn't perform much better when you double your cores from 4 to 8, but I really wanted to know if 8 actually performed worse. 

To test, I used a Dell 2950 with 6 drives and a simple mysqlslap test script.  There's basically no I/O going on here, just a small table in memory being queried a lot.  To be fair, I actually got this test from Venu.  I used maxcpu=4 in my grub.conf to limit the cpus (I also tested with tasksel and it seemed to have the same effect as maxcpu).

read more

There's been a lot of rumors floating around internally at Yahoo that it's best to turn off some of your CPU cores when using Innodb, especially if you have a machine with > 4 cores.  At this point there's no question in my mind that Innodb doesn't perform much better when you double your cores from 4 to 8, but I really wanted to know if 8 actually performed worse. 

To test, I used a Dell 2950 with 6 drives and a simple mysqlslap test script.  There's basically no I/O going on here, just a small table in memory being queried a lot.  To be fair, I actually got this test from Venu.  I used maxcpu=4 in my grub.conf to limit the cpus (I also tested with tasksel and it seemed to have the same effect as maxcpu).

read more

My earlier post mysql versus postgresql brought me lots of negative comments - that i did not compare the transactional database of pgsql with the transactional engine (innodb) of mysql. The main reason why i did not do that was because i had found InnoDB to be very slow as compared to MyISAM.

But after all those comments i ran the benchmarks again using the same scripts and the same technology

I created and ran some simple tests on mysql and postgresql to figure out which one is faster. It is already known that postgresql is more stable and reliable than mysql. pgsql has a rich set of features. It is a complete RDBMS and also supports fulltext search.

All benchmarks were done on my laptop - Intel core 2 duo (2.0 GHz) with 4MB L2 cache & 2 GB ram. I have 64 Bit ubuntu system loaded

I've run some data load tests with various databases using DBMonster, so connecting to databases through JDBC on a WindowsXP personal computer.Here are the results, in both cases I loaded 100 rows in the parent table and 1000 in the child table, with foreign keys enabled.Firebird 2.1 with Jaybird 2.1.3 and DBMonster 1.0.3 (And Java .6)Table structure is:CREATE TABLE GUYS(GUY_ID Integer NOT NULL,